JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned order of 2nd January, 2006 upholds petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 but reduces the substantive sentence imposed to rigorous imprisonment for six months while enhancing the fine to Rs. 15,0007- with default clause. 2. The sample of paneer drawn on 22nd March, 1994 from petitioner's shop did not confirm to the prescribed standard, as it fell short of milk fat i.e. the milk fat found in the sample of paneer-was 47.32%, whereas it ought to have been 50%. 3. The grievance made by petitioner's counsel is that the Public Analyst Report is of 12th April, 1994 but it was sent to petitioner only on 7th October, 1994 vide acknowledgement (Ex.PW1/C). 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State points out that the Public Analyst Report was sent at petitioner's address vide acknowledgement of 29th June, 1994 (Ex. PW1/D) but it was received back undelivered with the report that petitioner was not found to be residing at the given address. 5. Petitioner's counsel asserts that prior to filing of the criminal complaint in June, 1994, petitioner had changed his address and petitioner was served with the notice of complaint in August, 1994 and at that time the Public Analyst Report was not made available to him, thereby depriving him of his statutory right under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 of getting counter part of the sample tested from Central Food Laboratory, Not only this, learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to the cross-examination of Sanjeev Kumar, Food Inspector (PW-3), who had deposed in his cross-examination that the sample of paneer in question was kept in an almirah. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a decision in Chaman Lal Vs. The State 1972 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 292, wherein in paragraph No.8 & 13 it has been observed that the shell life of paneer is eleven to fifteen days if it is kept at room temperature and thereafter, it becomes decomposed and if it is kept in a refrigerator, it remains fit for about one month. 7. Counsel for petitioner submits that decision in Chaman Lal (Supra) relies upon decision of Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of India Vs. Ghisa Ram AIR 1967 SC 970 . 7. Counsel for petitioner submits that decision in Chaman Lal (Supra) relies upon decision of Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of India Vs. Ghisa Ram AIR 1967 SC 970 . Attention of this case is also drawn to a later decisions of this Court in State Vs. V. K. Muttoo and others 2008 (1) FAC 320; Crl. L.P. No.293/2008 State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Suhhash Cltand, rendered on 7th January, 2009 and The State Vs. Ramesh Chand 2010 [2] JCC 1250, wherein it has been reiterated that the sample of paneer gets decomposed within eleven to fifteen days at room temperature. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for both the sides and on perusal of impugned judgment of the trial court, I find that it is the positive case of petitioner that he was not supplied with the Public Analyst Report even when he had appeared before the trial court on 21 st August, 1994 and in the face of afore-noted decisions, whose ratio is that upon frustration of right of petitioner under Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 serious prejudice is caused to petitioner/accused. 9. On the prejudice aspect, impugned judgment quotes a passage from Apex Court decision in Chaman Lal (Supra) to hold that no prejudice is caused to petitioner because he was served with the Public Analyst Report vide acknowledgment EX.PW1/C by being oblivious of the fact that Public Analyst Report was sent to petitioner in October, 1994 vide Ex. PW1/C. By then, shell life of the sample in question had expired i.e. the sample of paneer in question had become decomposed after being kept at room temperature. Since the sample of paneer was kept at room temperature, therefore, it had substantially frustrated right of petitioner to get it tested from Central Food Laboratory, which certainly makes out a ease to intervene on the quantum of sentence. 10. Considering the fact that there was negligence on the part of petitioner in not furnishing the change of address to respondent, which led to non delivery of the Public Analyst Report in the first instance, 1 do find that petitioner deserves reduction of the substantive sentence, as his right to get the counter part of the sample tested from Central Food Laboratory stood frustrated. Such a view is being taken as petitioner has already faced these proceedings for last about eighteen years and has already remained behind bars for about two months. Petitioner is said to be aged fifty live years and has to discharge his family responsibilities. It is also submitted that petitioner has clean antecedents and except this case, he is not involved in any other matter. 11. What persuades this Court to reduce the substantive sentence imposed upon petitioner to the period already undergone are the pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in Hlaripadu Das Vs. State of West Bengl and another (1998) 9 SCC 678 , which are as under:- "6, This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated mustard oil. Although in the samples drawn by the Food Inspector, no impurities or objects injurious to health could be detected but it was found that the saponification value exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit and the BR reading also exceeded marginally than the prescribed limit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant was released on bail by this Court long back and became of the protracted litigation up to this Court he has also suffered a lot of mental agony and also financial hardship and also considering the fact that he had already undergone imprisonment for more than three weeks, we feel that in the facts of the case the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. We, however, direct that besides the tine imposed by the courts below, the appellant will have to pay a tine of Rs 5000 within four weeks from today, in default he will have to undergo imprisonment for three months. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The bail bonds stand discharged." 12. In the peculiarity of instant matter, while upholding the conviction of petitioner, the substantive sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the sentence of, tine ? This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.